Talk:XSL (disambiguation)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

XSL → XSL (disambiguation) – Move current disambig page at XSL to XSL (disambiguation), to make space for the stylesheet language, by far the primary use of the acronym, directly under XSL.

Extensible Stylesheet Language is the "official" title, but is almost never referred to under that title, always simple as XSL. If there is strong objection to renaming this article to XSL alone, then I wouldn't argue against that. However we should still move XSL to XSL (disambiguation), and XSL should then become a simple redirect to Extensible Stylesheet Language. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Extensible Stylesheet Language → XSL


 * Support: I can't imagine anything else competing for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It looks like we can put the main article at simply XSL, as the nominator suggests, following the example of XML. –CWenger ( ^ •  @ ) 18:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support: A disambig page might not even be necessary. You could just use a couple of For templates at the top of the Extensible Stylesheet Language article to link to the other articles. —mjb (talk) 22:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There are at least three unrelated disambig topics already. Rather than two hatnotes to each article, and three on the main article itself, it would be better to have the disambiguation page - especially as we already have it. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the XSL Formatting Objects link is really superfluous, as the Extensible Stylesheet Language article makes it clear that that's one of quite a few Extensible Stylesheet Language-related things that XSL can refer to. So really we're only talking about two on each article. However I withdraw the suggestion because the For message wouldn't make sense to someone who arrived at the article via a non-"XSL" link. I still have no objection to relegating the disambig page to second-class status. —mjb (talk) 06:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Support, clear primary topic.--Kotniski (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.